"1 ZZVw* 

CHARITABLE  CO-WERATION 


MARY  E.  RICHMOND 

General  Secretary  of  the  Philadelphia  Society  for  Organizing  Charity 


Reprinted from  the  Report  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Twenty-eighth  National  Conference 
of  Charities  and  Correction,  iqoi 


BOSTON 

George  H.  Ellis,  Printer,  272  Congress  Street 
1901 


CHARITABLE  CO-OPERATION. 


u 


About  the  year  1880,  it  occurred  to  different  groups  of  people  in  a 
number  of  American  cities  to  start  a  new  charity.  This  was,  in  itself, 
no  unusual  thing,  but  their  reason  was  peculiar.  They  started  a  new 
charity  because  there  were  so  many  already.  Religious  and  secular 
activity  in  philanthropy  had  created,  in  our  large  cities,  many  differ¬ 
ent  agencies.  However  well  these  may  have  been  organized  inter¬ 
nally,  they  were  not  organized  with  reference  to  each  other,  and  this 
fact  led  to  the  formation  of  charity  organization  societies. 

The  seal  of  the  New  York  society  illustrates  its  chief  object.  The 
seal  represents  a  chain  each  link  of  which  is  some  form  of  charitable 
activity.  The  links  are  marked  “  official  and  private  relief,” 
“churches  and  missions,”  “relief  societies,”  “homes  and  asylums,” 
“  hospitals  and  dispensaries,”  “  friendly  visitation,”  “  provident  schemes 
and  fresh  air  ”  ;  and  then,  binding  these  links  together  in  a  circle,  is  a 
band  inscribed  “  Charity  Organization  Society  of  the  City  of  New 
York.” 

This  conception  of  co-operation  would  seem  to  be  broad  enough 
and  difficult  enough  of  realization  to  satisfy  any  one,  but  it  has  been 
immeasurably  broadened  by  the  charitable  practice  of  every  success¬ 
ful  charity  organization  society.  Co-operation  on  the  official  side,  as 
it  concerns  the  relations  of  charitable  bodies,  is  still  very  important ; 
but  co-operation  as  a  working  principle  applicable  to  every  act  of  the 
charity  worker  is  fundamental.  It  may  be  well,  therefore,  to  con¬ 
sider  this  daily  habit  of  co-operation  in  some  detail  before  turning  to 
the  question  of  co-operation  among  charities. 

I.  Co-operation  with  the  Poor  and  their  Neighp,ors. 

When  one  points  out  that  the  field  of  charitable  co-operation  is  not 
limited  to  charities  alone,  but  extends  to  everything  affecting  the  life 
of  the  poor,  and  to  the  poor  themselves,  the  proposition  seems  almost 


4 


self-evident ;  but  its  hearty  acceptance  marks  an  important  and  com¬ 
paratively  recent  change  in  charitable  ways  of  thinking. 

The  success  of  this  more  personal  conception  of  co-operation  de¬ 
pends  upon  the  attitude  of  mind  of  the  individual  worker.  That  first 
moment  in  which  any  applicant  and  any  charity  agent  confront  each 
other  is  a  solemn  one,  for  the  applicant’s  future  depends  in  no  small 
degree  upon  what  the  agent  happens  to  think  about  the  resources  of 
charity.  The  record  of  one  such  interview  has  been  brought  to  my 
attention,  in  which,  after  the  usual  names,  ages,  etc.,  the  agent  had 
made  this  entry :  “  Nothing  unfavorable  could  be  found  out  about 

this  family.  Gave  fifty  cents.”  That  closed  the  record,  but  it  led  to 
interesting  speculations  as  to  the  worker’s  point  of  view. 

The  series  of  circles  on  the  following  page,  with  the  accompanying 
list  o^ forces,  is  an  attempt  to  picture,  though  in  very  crude  fashion, 
the  resources  of  the  modern  charity  worker  in  his  efforts  to  befriend 
families  in  distress.  The  family  life  is  pictured  by  a  circle  at  the 
centre.  Then  surrounding  this  are  circles  representing,  first,  the  per¬ 
sonal  forces  that  lie  outside  the  family,  but  nearest  to  it, —  the 
neighborhood  forces,  the  civic  forces,  the  private  charitable  forces, 
and,  last,  the  public  relief  forces  of  the  community.  The  resources  of 
which  the  untrained  and  unskilful  exclusively  think  —  the  groceries, 
fuel,  clothing,  and  cash  at  the  charity  worker’s  command  —  are  only 
a  small  part  of  his  actual  resources,  of  course ;  and  even  the  list 
given  under  this  diagram  is  very  incomplete.  It  may  be  indefinitely 
extended  for  any  given  city. 

The  diagram  assumes  three  things  :  First,  that  the  charity  worker 
really  knows  the  family  he  is  trying  to  help.  A  painstaking  investiga¬ 
tion  is  supposed  to  have  brought  to  light  the  resources  mentioned  in 
the  diagram  in  so  far  as  they  affect  the  given  family.  Second,  that, 
in  choosing  forces  with  which  to  co-operate,  the  worker  will  select 
those  that  are  nearest  to  the  family  and  most  natural  for  them  rather 
tjian  the  forces  that  lie  nearest  to  and  are  most  natural  for  him. 

Third, —  and  may  the  day  be  hastened  when  this  explanation  is  no 
longer  necessary  !  —  it  is  assumed  that  not  for  one  moment  has  he 
allowed  the  completion  of  his  investigation  or  the  drawing  up  of  his 
plan  of  co-operation  to  interfere  with  the  prompt  relief  of  urgent  need. 

All  city  families,  rich  and  poor  alike,  are  surrounded  by  the  ^ 
forces  indicated  within  these  circles  ;  and  the  failure  of  the  four  groups 


5 


Diagram  of  Forces  with  which  the  Charity  Worker  may  co 

operate. 


A.  — Family  Forces. 

Capacity  of  each  member  for 

Affection. 

T  raining. 

Endeavor. 

Social  development. 

B.  — Personal  Forces. 

Kindred. 

Friends. 

C .  — Neigh  borh  ood  Forces. 

Neighbors,  landlords,  tradesmen. 

Former  and  present  employers. 

Clergymen,  Sunday-school  teach¬ 
ers,  fellow  church  members. 

Doctors. 

Trade-unions,  fraternal  and  bene¬ 
fit  societies,  social  clubs,  fel¬ 
low-workmen. 

Libraries,  educational  clubs, 
cjasses,  settlements,  etc. 

Thrift  agencies,  savings-banks, 
stamp-savings,  building  and 
loan  associations. 

D.  — Civic  Forces. 

School-teachers,  truant  officers. 

Police,  police  magistrates,  pro¬ 
bation  officers,  reformatories. 


Health  department,  sanitary  in 
spectors,  factory  inspectors. 

Postmen. 

Parks,  baths,  etc. 

E.  — Private  Charitable  Forces. 

Charity  organization  society. 

Church  of  denomination  to  which 
family  belongs. 

Benevolent  individuals. 

National,  special,  and  general 
relief  societies. 

Charitable  employment  agencies 
and  work-rooms. 

Fresh -air  society,  children’s  aid 
society,  society  for  protection 
of  children,  children’s  homes, 
etc. 

District  nurses,  sick-diet  kitch¬ 
ens,  dispensaries,  hospitals,  etc. 

Society  for  suppression  of  vice, 
prisoner’s  aid  society,  etc. 

F.  — Public  Relief  Forces. 

Almshouses. 

Outdoor  poor  department. 

Public  hospitals  and  dispensaries. 


6 


of  forces  —  family,  personal,  neighborhood,  and  civic  —  to  resist  the 
downward  pull  of  gravitation  would  render  any  family  dependent. 
In  every  family  asking  charitable  aid,  therefore,  the  natural  resources 
have  so  far  failed  as  to  send  its  members  crashing  down  through 
circles  B,  C,  D,  to  E,  the  circle  of  private  charity.  The  problem  of 
charity  is  to  get  them  back  into  A  again  by  rallying  the  forces  that 
lie  between.  It  has  sometimes  seemed  worth  while,  in  puzzling 
cases,  to  advise  the  charity  agent  to  go  to  work  as  deliberately  as 
this  :  Taking  the  list  of  forces  in  each  circle,  to  check  off  each  one 
that  has  been  tried,  and  then  make  a  note  of  ways  in  which  to  use 
the  others.  The  device  is  mechanical ;  but,  when  a  family  continues 
long  in  E,  the  football  of  circumstance,  helped  “  a  little  ”  by  many 
agencies  and  individuals,  and  taught  to  believe  that  a  wretched 
appearance  and  dependent  attitude  will  make  the  most  effective  ap¬ 
peal,  then  any  device  seems  justified  that  will  help  to  restore  the 
family  to  independence  and  self-respect. 

Let  us  consider  the  contents  of  these  circles,  bearing  in  mind  that 
the  best  force  to  use,  other  things  being  equal,  is  the  force  that  lies 
nearest  the  family. 

Circle  A ,  Family  Forces .  —  The  first  resource  of  charity,  and  the 
one  most  commonly  overlooked,  is  within  the  needy  family  itself. 
The  charity  worker’s  first  question  should  be  :  What  powers  of  self- 
help  are' there  here  that  may  at  once  take  the  place  of  charitable 
relief,  or  else  may  be  developed  by  charity  to  take  its  place  hereafter  ? 
What  is  the  capacity  of  each  member  for  endeavor,  for  training,  for 
social  development,  for  affection  ?  Is  any  one  able-bodied  ?  If  so, 
the  able-bodiedness  is,  in  itself,  a  resource  to  be  developed.  Can 
any  one  be  taught  to  earn  more  or  to  earn  ?  Can  any  one  here  be 
helped  to  more  effective  living  by  a  social  pleasure  that  I  can  throw 
in  his  way  ?  Is  there1  any  affection  latent  here  that  I  can  appeal  to, 
and  so  put  new  heart  into  a  discouraged  worker  ? 

In  other  words,  what  the  family  can  do,  what  it  can  learn,  what  it 
can  enjoy,  what  it  can  feel, — these  are  the  important  things.  In  these 
we  have  the  greatest  resource  of  charity  and  the  most  important  field 
of  co-operation.  The  charity  worker  with  the  co-operative  spirit  is 
always  thinking  of  things  he  can  do  together  with  the  family,  and 
the  worker  who  lacks  this  spirit  can  think  only  of  things  to  do  for 
them. 

The  development  of  aids  to  this  department  of  co-operation  should 


7 


be  encouraged  in  every  possible  way.  We  need  more  manual  train 
ing,  more  social  clubs,  more  charities  with  the  thought  of  education 
in  them  ;  and,  above  all,  we  need  to  have  the  family  idea  emphasized 
in  all  such  work.  The  old  cry  of  “  Save  the  children  !  ”  must  be  super¬ 
seded  by  the  new  cry  of  “  Save  the  family !  ”  for  we  cannot  save  the 
one  without  the  other. 

Circle  B,  Personal  Forces. —  All  who  have  established  relations 
with  the  family  that  are  genuinely  personal,  though  they  may  be 
classified  in  the  diagram  under  neighborhood  or  civic  or  charitable 
forces,  deserve  to  be  included  in  this  circl'e.  The  church,  for 
instance,  may  become  a  personal  force  of  the  greatest  potency,  touch¬ 
ing  the  life  of  the  family  more  nearly  than  any  save  the  nearest 
kindred ;  but,  too  often,  it  allows  itself  to  drop  to  circle  E,  where  it  is 
regarded  by  the  poor  as  merely  a  source  of  supplies. 

This  circle  of  personal  forces  is  the  strategic  point  in  charity  work, 
but  charities  may  be  prevented  from  entering  it  by  two  lacks, —  lack 
of  personal  knowledge  of  the  poor  and  lack  of  personal  interest. 
We  have  all  been  the  victims  of  the  official  who  protects  himself  by 
a  highly  impersonal  manner ;  and,  even  when  we  have  understood, 
we  have  been  offended.  The  poor,  who  do  not  understand,  are 
doubly  offended  when  the  charity  worker’s  attitude  is  impersonal.  It 
is  possible,  of  course,  to  let  our  insistence  upon  personal  service 
degenerate  into  cant.  Not  all  personal  service  is  effective :  it  may 
be  unquestionably  personal  and  also  very  mischievous.  But,  after 
making  due  allowance  for  the  note  of  exaggeration,  what  impersonal 
service  can  ever  be  effective  in  dependent  families  ?  There  may  be 
whole  classes  of  dependents  whose  lot  could  be  bettered  by  wholesale 
measures.  But  family  problems  are  so  complex,  they  demand  such 
careful  manipulation ;  and  that  charity  will  be  most  successful  in  deal¬ 
ing  with  them  which  so  arranges  its  work  as  to  avoid  overcrowding 
any  one  worker  with  too  many  details.  The  most  successful  con¬ 
tinuous  work  will  usually  be  done  by  volunteers  acting  under  intelli¬ 
gent  leadership  and  with  a  trained  paid  agent. 

The  Boston  Associated  Charities  regards  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
five  new  families  a  year  as  the  limit  that  can  be  successfully  cared  for 
by  one  trained  agent  working  with  a  group  of  volunteers.  Charitable 
work  so  arranged  and  done  in  the  right  spirit  becomes  a  personal 
force  in  the  lives  of  the  poor.  Placed  securely  in  circle  B,  it  is  in  a 
position  to  co-operate  effectively  with  the  family  and  with  its  friends 
and  neighbors. 


8 


Relatives  sometimes  lose  sight  of  their  less  fortunate  kindred 
through  no  deliberate  neglect ;  and  kindred  should  always  be  turned 
to,  not  only  for  relief,  but  for  information  and  advice.  Their  sug¬ 
gestions  are  often  most  useful. 

The  Fulham  Committee  of  the  London  Charity  Organization  So¬ 
ciety  made  an  interesting  analysis,  a  few  years  ago,  of  the  sources  of 
relief  in  pension  cases.  It  was  found  that  29  per  cent,  of  the  pension 
money  administered  by  them  was  obtained  from  charitable  individuals 
who  were  strangers  to  the  pensioners,  22  per  cent,  came  from  old 
employers,  16  per  cent,  from  charities,  13  per  cent,  from  friends,  12 
per  cent,  from  relatives,  6  per  cent,  from  clubs,  and  2  per  cent,  from 
the  clergy.  The  large  percentages  from  relatives,  friends,  and  old 
employers  are  very  striking ;  but  we  must  remember,  in  comparing  this 
work  with  our  own,  that  many  ties  of  kindred  are  severed  in  this 
country  by  the  sweep  of  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  and  that  the  relations  of 
employer,  neighbor,  and  fellow-workman  are  all  rendered  less  perma¬ 
nent  by  our  migratory  habits.  English  charity  can  develop  the  re¬ 
sources  of  neighborhood  and  of  kindred  more  easily.  It  is  well  to 
note,  however,  that  England  has  also  furnished  us  with  some  striking 
examples  of  a  perverted  charitable  practice  in  this  regard.  Just  be¬ 
fore  the  reform  of  the  English  poor  law  the  following  bill  was 
presented  by  an  overseer  to  be  paid  out  of  the  rates :  — 


To  Elizabeth  W.,  a  present  for  her  kindness  to  her  father . 5^.  o d. 

To  Lucy  A.,  for  looking  after  her  mother  when  ill . 3^.  6d. 

To  Mary  A.,  for  sitting  up  at  night  with  her  father . 2 s.  o d. 


Let  local  conditions  be  what  they  may,  they  can  always  be  made 
worse  by  a  charity  official  with  such  views  as  these. 

Circle  C,  Neighborhood  Forces. —  Families  often  receive  a  great 
deal  of  neighborly  help  before  becoming  applicants  for  charity.  The 
local  tradesmen  and  landlords,  especially  those  who  sublet,  have 
given  credit,  neighbors  have  been  kind  and  helpful ;  and  these  local 
resources  have  been  more  or  less  exhausted  before  the  aid  of  charity 
has  been  called  in.  On  the  other  hand,  the  neighborhood  feeling 
seems  to  die  out  in  sections  of  the  city  in  which  charitable  relief  is 
most  obtainable.  During  the  blizzard  of  1899  charity  workers  in 
Baltimore  found  three  times  as  many  cases  of  absolute  destitution  on 
the  side  of  the  city  in  which  were  situated  most  of  the  well-to-do 
residences  and  rich  churches. 


9 


With  sophisticated  people  the  pressure  of  social  influence,  regulat¬ 
ing  their  standard  of  life  and  conduct,  comes  not  so  much  from  the 
immediate  neighborhood  in  which  they  live  as  from  a  wider  circle  of 
friendship  and  acquaintance.  But  the  unsophisticated  are  still  very 
sensitive  to  neighborhood  influences.  The  social  settlement  is  one  of 

*  the  forces  that  have  recognized  and  made  good  use  of  this  fact. 

A  wise  use  of  neighborhood  forces  is  also  the  basis  of  success  in 
the  district  plan  adopted  by  our  larger  charity  organization  societies. 

*  The  district  agent  and  district  committee  that  know  best  the  normal 
life  of  their  district  will  deal  most  wisely  with  its  abnormal  conditions. 
A  good  background  of  experience  of  the  normal  life  of  poor  people 
is  a  district  agent’s  best  safeguard  against  mistake.  Then,  too,  the 
friendly  acquaintance  with  doctors  and  employers  and  tradesmen,  the 
quiet  coming  and  going  about  one’s  daily  work,  bring  with  it  the  best 
possible  co-operation  of  an  unofficial  kind.  The  good  agent  reads 
the  interplay  of  social  forces  within  his  district  as  from  an  open  book, 
and  no  impatience  with  the  mischievous  and  evil  tendencies  working 
therein  can  blind  him  to  the  human  and  hopeful  side. 

Circle  Z>,  Civic  Forces. —  The  civic  representatives  within  the  dis¬ 
trict  are  important  neighborhood  forces.  For  better  or  worse,  they 
wield  an  influence  that  no  charity  equals, —  for  better,  because  good 
teachers,  good  policemen,  all  good  city  officials  coming  in  contact 
with  the  poor,  are  doing  a  quiet  and  effective  service  in  their  behalf 
that  many  charitable  people  have  no  conception  of ;  for  worse,  be¬ 
cause  the  poor  are  so  entirely  at  the  mercy  of  bad  officials.  A  district 
agent  will  need  all  his  courage  and  faith  when  he  finds  that  policy- 
shops,  “  speak-easies,”  and  immoral  houses  are  receiving  in  his  dis¬ 
trict  the  protection  of  the  police  and  of  the  magistrates.  Sometimes 
he  is  fairly  overwhelmed  by  a  sense  of  the  shamelessness  of  civic 
power  so  used  against  the  most  helpless  class  of  citizens,  and  nothing 
seems  worth  while  until  all  these  agents  of  corruption  can  be  swept 
away  by  a  general  uprising  of  good  people.  But  the  worst  thing  about 
good  people  is  their  unwillingness  to  work  hard  at  small  tasks,  and 
district  work  is  made  up  of  a  multiplicity  of  small  tasks.  The  cor- 

*  rupt  politician’s  success  is  due  to  the  fact  that  he  has  worked  hard  at 
the  weary  details  of  building  up  a  district  plan  of  his  own.  The 
ward  worker  needs  no  diagrams  to  explain  to  him  a  method  of  co- 

*  operation  with  which  he  has  long  been  familiar.  It  is  time  that  the 
charitable  took  a  leaf  from  their  book,  and  used  for  a  good  purpose 


10 


the  neighborhood  forces  that  these  self-seekers  have  employed  with 
such  energy  and  persistence. 

But  individual  officials  are  often  better  than  the  system  under  which 
they  work.  The  reformer  loses  nothing  by  recognizing  this  fact.  In 
a  sense,  they  are  victims,  too  ;  and  no  one  of  them  can  be  too  insignifi¬ 
cant  to  be  worth  winning  over  to  wise  views  about  charitable  relief. 
One  of  the  most  helpful  neighborhood  workers  that  the  writer  ever 
met  was  a  Tammany  truant  officer,  and  a  part  of  his  helpfulness  could 
be  traced  to  the  patience  and  tact  of  the  charity  organization  agent 
in  his  district. 

Circle  F,  Private  Charitable  Forces. —  The  relation  of  the  forces  „ 
within  circle  E  to  each  other  is  so  important  a  part  of  this  subject 
that  its  treatment  is  reserved  for  a  separate  section.  The  question 
that  most  concerns  us  here  is  the  order  in  which  charitable  agencies 
^should  be  used  in  the  care  of  needy  families.  Some  of  the  best  work 
can  be  done  with  applicants  that  have  asked  for  charitable  aid  for  the 
first  time,  if  the  agency  appealed  to  is  careful  to  protect  these  from 
contact  with  many  charities,  and  secure  the  needed  aid  from  the  most 
natural  sources.  But  in  another  and  large  class  of  families  natural 
sources  are  insufficient ;  and  the  family’s  own  capacities  can  be  devel¬ 
oped,  if  af  all,  only  very  slowly  and  with  great  patience.  These  fam¬ 
ilies  must  be  given  relief,  and  in  some  cases  for  a  long  while.  And 
here  we  have  one  of  the  most  important  problems  of  co-operation ; 
for  the  way  in  which  this  help  is  given, —  its  source,  its  amount, 
its  degree  of  flexibility,  its  greater  or  less  association  with  friendly 
influences,  its  insistence  upon  or  neglect  of  possible  self-help, —  all 
these  things  decide  whether  the  relief  shall  be  a  strong  lever  to  uplift 
the  family  or  a  dead  weight  to  drag  it  down.  The  unintelligent  ad¬ 
ministration  of  private  relief  has  drawn  many  a  family  into  permanent 
dependence  in  circle  F  upon  public  relief. 

When,  therefore,  a  choice  of  sources  of  help  must  be  made,  it  can¬ 
not  be  too  often  repeated  that  we  should  choose  the  charitable  sources 
best  adapted  to  deal  adequately  with  the  particular  need,  and  not  the 
sources  that  we  ourselves  happen  to  like  or  find  it  easiest  to  use. 
Charity  workers  get  into  the  habit  of  using  certain  combinations  of 
agencies  that  come  readily  to  mind  or  that  give  them  little  trouble. 
For  any  given  family  there  is  only  one  best  possible  combination, 
there  are  a  dozen  second  bests.  It  is  our  duty  to  find  the  best. 

If  a  family  has  held  membership  in  a  church  for  a  long  while  and 


I 


has  regarded  the  church  as  a  part  of  its  normal  life,  then  that  church 
becomes  a  perfectly  natural  and  neighborly  source  of  help  when  the 
family  is  in  distress.  But,  where  all  church  connection  has  lapsed,  a 
church  of  the  denomination  to  which  one  or  both  heads  of  the  family 
formerly  belonged  is  a  more  natural  source  of  help  than  a  general  re¬ 
lief  society.  The  national  organizations  for  relief  also  take  pre¬ 
cedence  of  general  relief  societies.  And  better  than  either  (though 
this  is  still  a  disputed  question)  is  relief  procured  from  a  charitable 
stranger,  who  will  contribute  a  sum  for  a  specific  purpose,  and  take 
an  interest  in  the  result  of  its  expenditure. 

Circle  F,  Public  Relief  Forces. —  Public  relief  is  the  best  possible 
form  of  relief  for  some  classes  of  dependants ;  but  there  are  many  rea¬ 
sons,  into  which  it  is  impossible  to  enter  here,  for  believing  that  pub¬ 
lic  relief  to  families  (public  outdoor  relief,  as  it  is  usually  called)  is,  of 
all  forms  of  relief,  the  most  difficult  to  use  as  an  incentive  to  self- 
help  and  independence.  A  number  of  our  larger  cities  have  abolished 
public  outdoor  relief,  and  others  are  trying  to  do  so ;  but,  wherever  it 
still  exists,  the  charity  worker  should  strive  to  keep  poor  families  “  off 
the  overseers’  books  ”  and  out  of  circle  F. 

Those  who  have  labored  long  in  charitable  work  may  be  inclined  to 
question  a  classification  of  social  forces  that  places  charity  so  low  in 
the  scale.  But  this  diagram  takes  no  account  of  the  large  classes  of 
dependants  and  defectives  not  living  in  families.  To  most  of  these 
charity  must  be,  so  far  as  we  can  now  see,  the  only  resource.  The 
hopeful  thing  about  family  life  is  that  it  is  surrounded  by  so  many  re¬ 
sources  besides  those  that  can  be  described  as  charitable.  The  recog¬ 
nition  of  this  fact,  while  it  imposes  upon  charity  a  more  delicate  and 
self-effacing  task,  greatly  enlarges  the  field  and  the  importance  of  its 
operations.  So  far  from  belittling  charity,  this  view  would  seem  to 
strengthen  its  claim  to  recognition  as  a  great  social  force. 

From  the  charity  worker  who  reported  of  a  family,  “  Nothing  unfa¬ 
vorable  ;  gave  fifty  cents,”  up  to  the  best  modern  type  of  profes¬ 
sional  worker,  who  patiently  strives  to  develop,  by  co-operation,  all 
possibilities  of  help  within  .and  without  the  family,  is  a  far  cry.  One 
wonders  how  long  the  charitable  public  will  tolerate  paid  agents  of  the 
first  type,  who  are  nothing  but  dispensers  of  ineffectual  doles,  when  it 
is  now  possible  to  secure  the  services  of  devoted  and  well-trained  men 
and  women,  whose  treatment  of  distress  would  be  helpful  and  thor¬ 
ough.  One  wonders,  too,  how  long  the  work  of  a  charitable  society 


will  be  measured  by  the  number  of  tons,  pounds,  or  yards  of  stuff  that 
it  has  dispensed.  The  only  test  of  charitable  work  in  families  is  the 
test  suggested  in  this  analysis  of  charity’s  resources;  namely,  the 
number  of  families  lifted  out  of  circle  E  and  placed  beyond  the  need 
of  charity  in  a  normal  family  life. 


II. — Co-operation  among  Charities. 

To  say  that  the  charities  of  a  community  should  work  together  har¬ 
moniously  is  to  make  a  statement  so  obvious  that  it  sounds  almost 
foolish,  but  to  bring  about  this  harmonious  relation  is  a  task  so 
stupendous  that  only  workers  of  large  faith  and  tireless  patience  can 
succeed  in  it.  Heart-sick  must  the  charity  worker  often  be  who  is 
striving  with  all  his  might  to  make  dependent  families  independent, 
for  he  must  find  himself  thwarted  at  many  a  turn  by  a  philanthropic 
activity  that  is  as  irresponsible  and  mischievous  as  it  is  well-meaning. 

Let  us  suppose  that  he  has  just  succeeded,  after  repeated  failures, 
in  persuading  the  heads  of  a  begging  family  to  take  honest  work, 
when  at  the  critical  moment  a  new  charitable  sewing  circle  or  an 
aid  society  discovers  the  family,  lavishes  supplies  upon  them,  and  the 
old  speculative  fever  is  rekindled.  Or  suppose  he  has  secured  a 
place  for  the  eldest  girl,  where  she  will  not  earn  at  once,  but  where 
she  will  learn  a  good  trade ;  and  then  the  leading  relief  society  sud¬ 
denly  decides  to  make  aid  conditional  upon  this  child’s  earning  some¬ 
thing  immediately  at  work  in  which  there  is  no  future  for  her.  Or 
suppose  the  curly-headed  boy,  who  has  been  kept  from  school  and 
sent  out  to  beg,  has  been  so  successful  in  winning  money  from 
thoughtless  passers-by  that  he  has  fallen  into  bad  ways,  and  the 
charity  worker  feels  that  the  boy’s  salvation  depends  upon  a  complete 
change ;  but  at  this  juncture  the  magistrate  and  the  church  visitor, 
touched  by  the  tears  of  his  mother,  who  needs  “  his  earnings,”  help 
to  get  him  off,  and  the  family  fortunes  continue  to  drift.  But  one 
does  not  have  to  suppose  such  things :  they  are  occurring  all  around 
us  every  day.  They  are  not  so  bad  (as  they  were, —  the  tide  has 
turned ;  but  they  are  still  bad  enough. 

Not  so  many  years  ago  the  charitable  situation  was  like  this : 
Conceive  of  twenty  doctors  dosing  the  same  case  at  the  same  time, 
without  consultation  and  each  in  his  own  way.  Our  medical  code  of 
ethics  forbids  such  a  state  of  things,  but  its  results  could  be  no  more 


13 


disastrous  among  the  sick  than  were  our  charitable  practices  among 
the  poor.  In  none  of  the  large  cities  was  there  any  charitable  code 
of  ethics, —  in  some  there  is  none  to-day, —  and  a  sort  of  philan¬ 
thropic  free  riot  prevailed.  Figures  may  give  us  some  conception  of 
the  magnitude  of  the  danger.  New  York’s  new  directory  of  charities 

♦  describes,  for  Manhattan  and  the  Bronx,  nearly  twenty-three  hundred 
separate  agencies,  and  for  Brooklyn  another  thousand.  Boston  has 
a  thousand,  Baltimore  about  nine  hundred,  Philadelphia  about  twenty  - 

*  four  hundred.  If,  in  these  cities,  each  charity  continued  to  do  that 
which  was  right  in  its  own  eyes,  and  recognized  no  obligation  to 
others  working  in  the  same  field,  the  poor  would  suffer  cruelly.  All 
other  arguments  for  charitable  co-operation  sink  into  insignificance 
beside  this  one,  that  our  unwillingness  to  pull  together  causes  such 
unnecessary  suffering  among  the  poor. 

Fortunately,  the  tide  has  turned.  Every  city  having  a  live  charity 
organization  society  is  supplied  with  an  agency  that  will  gladly  serve 
as  a  means  of  communication  among  charities.  No  one  has  any 
excuse  now  for  working  in  the  dark,  for  the  facts  may  be  had.  Only 
those  who  know  intimately  the  history  of  earlier  years  can  realize 
what  this  has  accomplished.  To  young  workers,  just  joining  the 
ranks,  many  things  must  still  seem  disheartening ;  and  it  is  a  pity 
that  they  cannot  grasp  at  once  the  significance  of  these  slow  changes, 
for  the  long  view  would  be  cheering.  In  nothing  would  the  change 
seem  so  marked  as  in  our  willingness  to  co-operate  with  the  poor 
themselves  and  with  their  neighbors. 

The  writer  has  been  tempted  to  change  the  series  of  circles  illus¬ 
trating  the  forces  with  which  we  may  co-operate  into  a  second 
diagram,  showing  the  view  of  a  charity  director  of  the  old  unco¬ 
operative  type.  In  the  second  figure  the  central  circle  of  the  series 
would  be  occupied  by  the  director  himself ;  the  next  would  contain 
his  charitable  society ;  the  next,  the  subscribers  to  the  same ;  the 
next,  the  big  figures  that  make  such  an  impression  on  the  subscribers  ; 
and,  last  of  all,  somewhere  on  the  remote  circumference  —  little 
known  and  little  understood  —  would  appear  the  poor  people,  the 
\  beneficiaries  of  his  charity. 

Now  the  secret  of  effective  co-operation  is  to  bring  about  a  revo¬ 
lution  in  this  attitude  of  mind.  The  attitude  is  not  so  common  as  it 
t  used  to  be ;  but,  wherever  it  still  exists,  there  is  no  more  effective  bar 

to  co-operation.  It  is  not  enough  for  charities  to  refrain  from  saying 


H 


disagreeable  things  about  each  other ;  it  is  not  enough  for  them  to 
make  commercial  contracts,  dividing  the  burdens  of  investigation  or 
relief.  Real  co-operation  implies  the  hearty  working  together  of 
those  who  are  striving,  with  convictions  held  in  common,  toward  some 
definite  object.  We  have  already  seen  that  this  definite  object 
should  be  the  restoration  of  as  many  poor  families  as  possible  to  a 
position  of  independence.  Some  one  has  said  that  the  greatest  dis¬ 
covery  of  modern  education  is  the  child.  We  might  paraphrase  this 
by  saying  that  the  greatest  discovery  of  modern  charity  is  the  poor 
family.  That  Scriptural  lesson  in  proportion  points  the  way  for  us, — 
“  Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  his  righteousness,  and  all 
these  things  shall  be  added  unto  you.”  When  charities  seek  first  the 
restoration  of  the  dependant  with  energy  and  devotion,  all  the  details 
of  co-operation,  falling  easily  and  naturally  into  their  right  places, 
shall  be  added  unto  them. 

If  the  highest  co-operation  is  based  upon  agreement  as  to  princi¬ 
ples,  such  agreement  is  still  a  matter  of  slow  growth.  We  must  not 
expect  people  to  change  suddenly  their  whole  theory  with  regard  to 
poverty  and  its  relief,  because  it  does  not  happen  to  agree  with  ours. 
But  out  of  a  sincere  interest  in  the  poor,  and  a  working  together  over 
individual  problems,  may  come  this  higher  co-operation  if  we  take 
pains  to  make  our  treatment  of  every  individual  family  a  means  to 
this  end.  Thoroughly  efficient  case  work  becomes  our  best  stepping- 
stone.  The  patient  unravelling  of  each  individual  problem,  the 
quiet  avoidance  of  showy  schemes  and  boastful  talk,  the  willingness 
to  serve  both  the  co-operative  and  the  unco-operative,  will  surely  win 
not  only  respect,  but  fellowship  in  the  long  run.  It  is  best  to  say 
very  little  to  other  charitable  bodies  about  co-operating  until  the  habit 
is  well  established  in  our  own  daily  practice;  and,  even  then,  the  less 
formally  we  begin,  the  better. 

“  We  are  willing  enough,”  says  Mrs.  Dunn  Gardner,  writing  of  her 
London  fellow-workers,  “  to  have  a  try  to  organize  some  large  institu¬ 
tion,  or  local  charity,  or  parish  meeting,  or  benevolent  society ;  but, 
when  it  becomes  a  question  of  organizing  individuals, —  that  is  to  say, 
of  convincing  them,  one  by  one,  that  our  principles  are  true,  and  of 
inducing  them  to  guide  their  action  by  these  principles, —  we  are 
most  of  us  inclined  to  shirk  the  task.  I  believe  myself  that  the 
wholesale  system  of  doing  things  is  as  false  when  applied  to  organiza¬ 
tion  as  when  applied  to  relief,  and  that  important  bodies  can  only  be 


won  over  to  our  side  by  carefully  and  thoroughly  dealing  with  the 
individuals  who  compose  them.” 

No  one  should  be  astonished  to  find  that  the  method  of  dealing 
thoroughly  with  each  poor  family,  as  it  has  been  described  in  this 
paper,  applies  equally  well  to  our  dealings  with  charities.  To  co¬ 
operate  with  the  poor,  we  must  know  them.  This  is  the  first  step  in 
co-operating  with  a  charity, —  to  know  its  history,  its  objects,  and  its 
limitations.  We  reveal  our  lack  of  interest  and  sympathy  when  we 
ask  charities  to  do  things  that  they  were  never  intended  to  do.  An 
energetic  young  doctor  once  said  to  the  writer,  “  I  just  hated  your 
society  when  I  was  on  our  hospital  staff,  for  it  always  fell  to  my  lot 
to  visit  the  applicants  for  admission ;  and  one  of  your  agents,  whose 
district  was  at  the  other  end  of  the  city,  was  forever  writing 
about  people  whom  I  found  to  be  in  the  last  stages  of  some  incurable 
disease.”  The  agent  in  question  had  a  thousand  virtues;  but  the 
ability  to  put  herself  in  another’s  place,  to  understand  the  limitations 
of  a  poor  family  or  of  a  charity,  was  not  one  of  them.  She  had  the 
misfortune  to  be  an  insulator,  and  co-operation  did  not  thrive  in  that 
particular  district  until  she  had  resigned. 

If  we  were  to  formulate  the  experience  acquired  from  working  with 
the  poor  into  three  maxims  about  working  with  the  charitable,  the 
first  maxim  would  be  that  we  must  know  a  charity  before  we  can  co¬ 
operate  with  it.  We  must  give  ourselves  up  to  a  sympathetic  appre¬ 
ciation  of  whatever  is  best  in  it  before  we  can  hope  to  get  the  best 
out  of  it.  And  the  second  maxim  would  grow  naturally  out  of  the 
first.  When  we  have  turned  over  to  another  charity  a  task  that  is 
clearly  theirs,  we  must  trust  them  to  do  it,  and  do  it  well.  People 
often  get  unduly  nervous  about  their  work,  and  want  either  to  do  it 
all  themselves  or  else  to  supervise  it  very  closely.  This  state  of 
mind  kills  co-operation.  We  must  trust  others;  and,  in  the  third 
place,  we  must  teach  them  to  trust  us  by  a  scrupulous  care  in  keep¬ 
ing  our  promises.  If  we  have  said  that  we  will  do  a  thing,  it  should 
be  known  to  be  as  good  as  done. 

Humiliating  to  acknowledge,  but  beyond  dispute,  is  the  fact  that 
the  charitable  subscriber  is  a  cause  of  strife.  The  subscriber  himself 
is  not  wholly  without  blame.  In  his  efforts  to  escape  from  the 
appeals  of  two  agencies,  whose  work  is  more  or  less  closely  allied,  he 
has  been  known  to  say  to  each  that  he  prefers  to  give  to  the  other. 
Then  the  charities  (being,  like  the  subscriber,  distinctly  human)  have 


1 6 


become  imbittered  against  each  other  by  these  tactics.  If  their 
directors  would  only  reason  the  matter  out,  they  must  realize  that 
there  is  no  fixed  sum  set  aside  by  any  community  for  charitable  pur¬ 
poses.  The  amount  can  be  increased  or  decreased  at  any  time.  It 
does  not  follow  that,  as  the  work  of  one  charity  becomes  better  and 
more  favorably  known,  the  subscriptions  to  others  will  fall  off. 
Good  work,  well  done  and  intelligently  explained,  wins  financial  sup¬ 
port  ;  and  it  may  be  affirmed  with  equal  certainty  that  an  unfriendly 
attitude  among  a  city’s  charities  loses  financial  support  to  every  one 
of  them.  Such  rivalry  becomes  a  public  scandal :  all  thoughtful 
people  are  disgusted  by  it.  Wherever  the  impression  has  got  abroad 
that  the  leading  charities  of  a  community  will  not  co-operate  with 
each  other,  and  that  their  work,  in  consequence,  is  antiquated  in 
method  and  unfortunate  in  result,  the  younger  generation  of  givers 
are  rapidly  becoming  alienated  from  all  charitable  interests.  They 
are  refusing  to  serve  on  charitable  boards,  and  are  withholding  their 
money  from  benevolent  objects.  To  put  the  question  on  the  lowest 
possible  plane,  it  pays  charities  to  be  co-operative. 

Another  bar  to  charitable  co-operation,  when  we  are  foolish  enough 
to  permit  him  to  become  such,  is  the  applicant.  Sometimes  he  is 
stupid,  and  repeats  messages  incorrectly.  Sometimes  he  is  shrewd, 
and  seeks  his  own  advantage  in  getting  two  agencies  at  loggerheads. 
We  should  avoid  sending  an  applicant  from  one  charity  office  to 
another.  It  is  bad  for  him,  in  the  first  place  ;  and,  when  we  send  him 
home  instead,  we  can  communicate  directly  with  the  agency,  state  our 
reasons  for  so  doing  more  clearly,  and  secure  more  intelligent  action. 

Turning  from  this  more  negative  side  of  the  subject,  let  us  assume 
that  charities  have  so  far  developed  a  corporate  conscience  that  they 
are,  for  the  most  part,  sincerely  anxious  to  put  poor  people  beyond 
the  need  of  charity.  For  the  most  part,  they  are  anxious ;  but  their 
anxiety  must  make  them  jealously  watchful  of  results  before  they  will 
discover  that  one  of  the  obstacles  to  this  end  is  a  lack  of  systematic 
communication  among  charities  engaged  in  any  form  of  relief  work 
in  families.  When  they  make  this  discovery,  they  will  not  be  satisfied 
that  poor  families  shall  escape  from  the  dangers  of  duplicated  and 
unrelated  relief  by  a  happy  accident.  They  will  not  be  satisfied 
until  some  means  of  confidential  communication  has  been  established 
among  charities,  assuring  to  each  agency  a  prompt  report  of  what  the 
others  are  doing  in  each  family. 


17 


Registration  of  relief,  as  it  is  called,  has  been  highly  developed  in 
a  few  cities,  and  with  good  results.  The  objections  to  it  have  proven, 
in  actual  practice,  to  be  unimportant  or  mistaken.  In  Boston,  where 
many  agencies  that  held  aloof  at  first  have  been  induced  to  try  it? 
nearly  forty  thousand  confidential  reports  were  received  last  year. 

*  Writing  of  the  results  of  this  exchange,  Miss  Frances  Morse  says, 

“  We  find  registration  justifying  the  belief  of  its  projectors  that  it 
would  afford  positive  information,  would  prevent  the  overlapping  of 
relief,  would  save  waste  of  time  and  effort  by  enabling  societies  to 
narrow  their  field  and  thus  make  their  work  more  thorough,  would 
detect  imposture,  and  would  make  it  possible  so  to  map  out  the  city 
that  one  could  see  what  neighborhoods  were  most  in  need  of  improve¬ 
ment.” 

Another  need  that  the  co-operative  spirit  develops  is  a  good  direc¬ 
tory  of  the  charitable  resources  of  the  community.  Such  a  book  is 
indispensable  to  good  work  in  a  large  city ;  for,  through  it,  agencies 
may  learn  to  avoid  irritating  blunders,  and  use  each  other  more  intel¬ 
ligently.  A  directory  of  charities  is  useful  in  two  other  ways.  It 
brings  to  light  needs  that  are  not  yet  met  by  charity,  so  that  existing 
agencies  may  work  together  to  keep  these  needs  before  charitable 
testators  and  donors.  It  also  shows  in  what  direction  the  further 
development  of  charity  is  unnecessary.  Often  out  of  the  sincerest 
desire  to  do  good,  and  often,  too,  out  of  professional,  denominational, 
or  social  rivalry,  agencies  are  created  for  which  there  is  no  real  need. 
People  seem  to  have  a  passion  for  bringing  charities  into  the  world, 
and  then  leaving  them  without  support.  The  death-rate  among  these 
weaklings  is  very  heavy.  Of  all  the  charities  established  in  Baltimore 
in  four  years,  it  was  discovered  that  fifty-five  per  cent,  had  died  within 
that  time.  The  loss  in  money,  time,  and  good  temper  that  this  im¬ 
plies,  would  have  justified  the  community  in  charging  a  large  debit 
against  charity’s  account. 

The  co-operative  spirit  at  work  is  an  eminently  practical  spirit. 
Not  satisfied  with  suppressing  charities  where  they  are  not  needed 
and  developing  them  where  they  are,  it  will  plan  a  division  of  labor 
among  existing  agencies  upon  the  basis  of  allotting  to  each  the  part 
that  it  is  best  fitted  to  take.  We  have  all  recognized  a  certain  child¬ 
like  and  engaging  quality  in  Bottom’s  cry,  “  Let  me  play  the  lion,  too.” 

t  But  when  we  see  charities  engaged  in  combining  a  home  for  the  aged 

with  an  orphan  asylum,  or  the  feeding  of  the  homeless  with  the 


8 


placing-out  of  children,  or  every  imaginable  sort  of  work  with  the 
relief  of  destitute  families,  we  feel,  like  Peter  Quince,  that  it  is 
“  enough  to  hang  us  all,”  and  would  say  with  him,  “You  can  play  no 
part  but  Pyramus.”  Then,  if  we  are  wise,  we  shall  add  (for  Quince 
had  the  co-operative  spirit),  “  Pyramus  is  a  sweet-faced  man  ;  a  proper 
man  as  one  shall  see  in  a  summer’s  day ;  a  most  lovely,  gentlemanlike 
man:  therefore,  you  must  needs  play  Pyramus.”  This  queer  combi¬ 
nation  of  unrelated  work  in  one  society  is  the  survival  of  a  cruder 
stage  of  development.  As  our  charity  becomes  more  highly  organ¬ 
ized,  it  must  disappear. 

We  have  passed  hastily  in  review  some  methods  of  charitable  co¬ 
operation, —  co-operation  with  the  poor,  with  the  forces  that  surround 
them ;  co-operation  among  charities  in  the  treatment  of  the  individual 
case,  in  the  registration  of  relief,  in  the  development  and  repression 
of  charitable  activity,  and  in  the  division  of  labor.  We  have  seen 
that  the  highest  and  best  co-operation  is  based  upon  a  hearty  accept¬ 
ance  of  certain  principles  underlying  charitable  action  ;  but,  if  two 
charitids  agree  about  anything,  they  can  and  should  co-operate.  It  is 
not  necessary  to  wait  until  they  agree  about  everything.  By  making 
the  most  of  their  agreements  and  minimizing  their  differences,  they 
acquire  the  habit  of  co-operation  ;  and  only  after  this  habit  has  been 
acquired  can  they  hope  to  secure  that  basis  of  agreement  upon  which 
large  charitable  and  legislative  reforms  are  founded.  An  improvised 
co-operation  is  seldom  effective,  for  the  lack  of  real  cohesion  among 
agencies  hastily  called  together  to  ward  off  some  legislative  danger  is 
too  apparent.  But,  when  these  same  agencies  have  established  the 
habit  of  working  together  over  smaller  tasks,  they  march  upon  Al¬ 
bany  or  Harrisburg  or  Springfield  or  Boston  or  Annapolis  with 
every  chance  of  victory.  The  first  larger  fruits  of  the  co-operative 
spirit,  as  shown  in  better  child-saving  and  better  housing  laws,  give 
promise  of  a  more  abundant  yield  in  the  future. 

The  fruit  will  not  be  sound,  however,  unless  it  spring  from  the 
good  ground  of  the  individual  case.  We  have  had  large  crops  of 
legislative  bad  fruit  from  those  who  have  insisted  upon  beginning  at 
the  other  end.  Charitable  co-operation  begins  and  ends  in  an  inti¬ 
mate  knowledge  of  the  needs  of  individual  poor  people  and  in  the 
patient  endeavor  to  make  them  permanently  better  off. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


3  0112  072390476 


